The precautionary principle and/or risk assessment in World Trade Organization decisions: a possible role for risk perception

Our plain-English summary of The precautionary principle and/or risk assessment in World Trade Organization decisions: a possible role for risk perception, by B. Goldstein, R.S. Carruth (Risk Analysis, 2004).

The study

• Authors: B. Goldstein, R.S. Carruth
• Journal: Risk Analysis
• Published: 2004;24(2):491-9
• Cited by: 8 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Risk analysis has been recognized and validated in World Trade Organization (WTO) decision processes. In recent years the precautionary principle has been proposed as an additional or alternative approach to standard risk assessment. The precautionary principle has also been advocated by some who see it as part of postmodern democracy in which more power is given to the public on health and safety matters relative to the judgments of technocrats. A more cynical view is that the precautionary principle is particularly championed by the European Community as a means to erect trade barriers. The WTO ruling against the European Community's trade barrier against beef from hormone-treated cattle seemed to support the use of risk assessment and appeared to reject the argument that the precautionary principle was a legitimate basis for trade barriers. However, a more recent WTO decision on asbestos contains language suggesting that the precautionary principle, in the form of taking into account public perception, may be acceptable as a basis for a trade barrier. This decision, if followed in future WTO trade disputes, such as for genetically modified foods, raises many issues central to the field of risk analysis. It is too early to tell whether the precautionary principle will become accepted in WTO decisions, either as a supplement or a substitute for standard risk assessment. But it would undermine the value of the precautionary principle if this principle were misused to justify unwarranted trade barriers.

In plain English

This article was a commentary on law and policy, not a medical study, and it reported no health data on asbestos. Two University of Pittsburgh authors, from public health and law, examined how two World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body decisions treated the precautionary principle and risk assessment. In the January 1998 beef hormone case, the Appellate Body held that the precautionary principle is not an established rule or principle of law. In the asbestos case, Canada complained that France had unfairly banned asbestos products. The Panel upheld the ban as necessary to protect human health. On appeal the outcome stayed the same: the EC won and Canada lost. The Appellate Body also said that health risk must be examined in the context of consumer perception and behavior. The authors called that statement wholly unnecessary to resolving the case. In their view, it can be argued to open the door to consumer perception of risk. They anticipated that risk perception would play a major role in future WTO disputes, such as those over genetically modified agricultural products.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary (legal and policy analysis) of two WTO Appellate Body decisions; no original data collected
• Who was studied: Two WTO dispute decisions: the January 1998 beef hormone case and the asbestos case, in which Canada complained that France had banned asbestos products
• Exposure: Asbestos products and substitute fibers, as the subject of a French ban challenged at the WTO; the article names no specific fiber type and gives no exposure data
• Main results:
  • In the beef hormone case, the WTO Appellate Body held that the precautionary principle is not an established rule or principle of law
  • In the asbestos case, the outcome on appeal was the same as at the Panel stage: the French ban stood, the EC won and Canada lost
  • The Appellate Body in the asbestos case said evidence of health risk must be examined not only in terms of the products' physical properties but also in terms of consumer perception and behavior
  • The authors argued that this statement about consumer perception was not needed to decide the asbestos case
  • From a thought experiment, the authors concluded that using risk perception in trade decisions works against American trade interests
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the Appellate Body's remarks in the asbestos decision can be argued, and may have been intended, to open the door to consumer perception of risk. They anticipated that risk perception will play a major role in future WTO disputes, such as those over genetically modified agricultural products.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated that they did not summarize the many complex legal issues in the beef hormone case beyond those related to risk assessment and the precautionary principle

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Precautionary Principle.

Related studies

• The asbestos case: a comment on the appointment and use of nonpartisan experts in world trade organization dispute resolution involving health risk — R.S. Carruth, B.D. Goldstein (2004)
• Asbestos poisons World Trade Organization atmosphere — L. Kazan-Allen (2001)
• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• Development of an exposure assessment method for epidemiological studies of New York State personnel who responded to the World Trade Center disaster — M.L. Herdt-Losavio, M.P. Mauer, et al. (2008)
• Environmental exposures and cancer: using the precautionary principle — L. Cohen, A. Jefferies (2019)
• Baby Powders and the Precautionary Principle — D. Rosner, G. Markowitz (2020)

Browse more research in Risk Analysis, or return to medical research.